User:Ramu50/OLD Index/sub 1

Your contributions to Function_(mathematics)
Your edits have been reverted twice by a well-known mathematician. Please refrain from adding tangential material to that article. You most certainly think your additions are appropriate, but mathematics is considerably more vast than you think. The functions that you listed are covered, at a different level, in articles about different branches of mathematics. If you insist on making those additions, I suggest you discuss them on the article's talk page. Sincerely, VasileGaburici (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, so far no other person on the talk page has supported discussing GPGPU or CUDA in the article on functions. I have to say I also find it very tangential to the topic of that article. Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than just re-inserting the material into the article, especially when the same material has been removed by two different editors. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The material you are inserting was removed by Arthur Rubin and by Jitse Nelson (diff). I have avoided removing it myself so far only to leave time for discussion on the talk page, where I left my opinion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramu,you have now reverted three times on that article. I encourage you to read the three revert limit policy. If you revert again, there is a high chance you will be blocked. Wikipedia has a policy on edit warring that you are on the verge of violating. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Carl on this. Truly, we're not trying to gang up on you. I've been where you're at, and I found it very painful. Sometimes you will be right, and sometimes you will be wrong. This time the consensus is: you're wrong but well-intentioned (the former is less important than the later) . . . and as in all things good or bad, I hope you can convince yourself to take the upside, then . . . : Create a new, useful, effective article and link it to Wvbailey (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Here is an example of the personal attacks you have been engaging in:  Please refrain from doing so. Thanks!! :)'' Jaysweet (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and contentious edits
Don't do this again. Either the "bullshit" comment implies that you think Solaris and the X Window System are Linux distributions, or it's a personal attack. The first is contentious. The second is unacceptable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A Wikiquette alert about you has been filed
See relevant discussion thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ramu50 --219.77.139.158 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * PLEASE do not remove text from the Wikiquette forum. If claims against you are found to be false, the original editor will be asked to retract them by using the strikethrough command.  BMW  (drive)  11:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

AT Attachment talk page
Greetings,

jeh here. I'm afraid another monkey wrench has been thrown into the works.

There was a previous comment by an anon editor strongly disapproving of the new organization of the talk page. I didn't think much of that at the time, but ...

Yesterday a couple of people in the rename review discussion commented very strongly that "organizing" it had made it very disorganized, and worse, was continuing to further disorganization as new threads were being created in various places throughout the page, instead of just at the end.

One of the objectors pointed out that the talk page guidelines (see WP:TALK and WP:REFACTOR) state that if anyone objects to the "refactoring" it should be reverted. And there have been three objections.

So, I have removed the upper level organization and put the bulk of the page (other than the "requrested move", "archives", and "references" sections) back to chronological order by the first entry in each thread.

(There's a whole template system for archives which I intend to put to use soon, but not tonight.)

I have checked twice to be sure I didn't drop anything.

Due to your having archived portions of the SSD, ATA/ATAPI, etc. threads some of the sections on those topics that remain, are left starting with statements by you that are referring to things no longer on the page. But that was due to your archiving, not this "un-refactoring" (i.e. those sections already started with such statements).

The SSD, ATA/ATAPI, etc., criticisms sections actually fared pretty well (at least I don't think they look more disorganized) and this way the flow of the threads really does reflect the sequence of the discussion.

Due to the objections received I think that reverting back to the "organized" form is currently not allowable, even though I think we both think the "organized" form is better.

( I have to admit though that after the first archiving of a lot of the stale topics, that left a lot fewer topics... so it's not as in need of an upper-level structure as it first appeared. )

btw, based on things I've seen on other pages, it seems that if you want the talk page to serve as a work list or schedule for improving the page, the usual thing is to just add a new section with that as a topic, rather than rearrange the existing sections.

So, this heads-up... I didn't want you to look at the page and think "oh no, what has he done NOW!" I hope you take this in the spirit (WP:AGF) in which it's intended.

btw, I agree with your sentiments expressed on your user page re religion. Heinlein: "Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help." More here. --Jeh (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked (Nvidia)
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I told you to discuss and form a consensus first. Instead, you reverted at Template:Nvidia after numerous discussion at WP:ANI.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

APEX
I reverted your APEX reorg, as it was left in a half-done state. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted your new unsupported addition. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Apex I edit is an dismabiguation. Wikipedia never state disambiguation require citations, the APEX is as notable as ACML libraries developement and your action is bias and hence I am reverting it again. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Discuss this at the dismabiguation talk page, not on my user page. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning once again
Ramu, I see that you have ignored my prior warning and instead chose to continue to edit templates and articles without discussion at all. Instead you chose to edit Windows Live without an edit summary or a discussion. I've seen enough of this. Last warning for this stuff. If you edit another template or article without prior discussion, I'm blocking you for a month. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a form of advertising, which is already violating Wikipedia policy. Also for your information I can make an edit, before discussing, because I am not proposing on anything, if anyone oppose then talk dicussion is definitely require, I didn't this is several article inclduing the following and no one has a problem with it, except this article, so let me ask you, are you the one who have your own mental hatred against newcomers or what the deal with you

So you think you are an adminstrators and therefore everything you said is correct, have you even not pay attention to what the Wikipedia survey scope is focusing on


 * List of BSD operating systems (redlinks cleanup)
 * List of MSN Services
 * Live Services (cleanup + Categorization + advertising removal)

Do I also need to tell you that, over and over and over again, they are bias people like you that kept on Agreeing with the Majority, nonetheless how ridiculous they are, they ignore the people who actually want to "make a world a better world place" as stated in the survey.


 * Apex

And you may say I my attitude sucks and I use sarcasm too much. And here is something for you, I don't give a damn to you people who uses vulgar Right Wing force and who aren't willing to talk with others like to be a victim of conditioning, because as far as ANI goes, you should me you have NOTHING as an administrator. Actually I would respect admin like SheffieldSteel than you. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok fine, pretend I am being narrowminded and not letting the past be the past, but why do edit Wikipedia, may I ask. I am serious, not meant be sarcasm if you'll felt it was inferred. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When multiple users feel the need to constantly revert your work (and you consistently ask basic questions on the talk page), it would be considered good manners for you to talk about your editing first. Regarding of how you feel about the majority, consensus is how we do things.  Have a discussion and try to convince people of your views.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. ''Ramu, your continued addition of non-disambig item on a disambig page, and your incivil response to suggestions and offers of help on the corresponding talk page, make your actions nothing but disruptive, essentially indistinguishable from vandalism. Hence this final warning, to let you know that if you add it again, rather than discuss it civilly on the talk page, you will be blocked from further editing. '' Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding an article that meets notability and manual style of guidelines is not consider vandalism losers. Go read the vandalism policy before you start talking anything stupid. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The warning was not about adding an article. If you had added an article first, then you could add a disambig item to that article.  Instead, you keep adding a non-disambig item that other editors keep trying to explain is not appropriate.  This is disruptive, and your inability to discuss it is, frankly, puzzling. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For my 2c, I am still unconvinced of the value of having this on the dab page. I advocate removing it, and the couple other items that are not linked to an article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Move to talk page, this is not the Dismabiguation talk page.

Breaking 3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Do not revert the Apex page again! -- Raysonho (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning
Ramu, please read WP:three-revert rule. If you keep reverting our attempts to fix the apex page back to normal style, you will probably be in violation, and may be blocked for that. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And you have constantly not willing to discuss the Disambiguation strucuture after numerous WP:3RR. Discuss before you revert, because so far you have been able to provide any support for the dismabiguation style you wish to keep. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Give me reason why I am being block, since I follow Wikipedia policy, while the opponnet is not following the guidelines, I have given evidence on the Aegia APEX and Disambiguation strucuture and apparently they aren't. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramu, it is not my intention to be your opponent. I have offered help, and continued to offer civil constructive advice on the apex talk page.  I have reverted you three times today, which is the limit, and I'll stop there.  It's not really that hard to work on articles together; when you get unblocked, try it.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to stop editing in this disruptive a manner. This is why you were blocked before.  If you continue doing this you are likely to be permanently blocked from editing.
 * Please, calm down and stop editing this way. It's rude to all the other contributors and is not helping out the encyclopedia content.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right, or you may be wrong. But the block is not about that. I would suggest you read WP:BRD and try that approach when the block expires. Enjoy the break. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ramu50, I think that the very fact that you think of other editors as your "opponents" (your word) is part of the problem. We are not here to be your opponents, we are here to help you understand and work within the existing guidelines and policies. Jeh (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Q2 2009 --Ramu50 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A word of caution
Wikipedia is a community of people that engages civilly and constructively in developing and improving articles. You may not be vandalizing, but it is expected that you conduct yourself in a way that is conducive to collaboration. So, take this as a word of caution and re-consider the way you participate and engage with others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)